Re: defending Bill Gates the consumer

[Eric Lee Green <elgreen@iname.com>]

On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, L.A.M.E. wrote:
> As has been shown on this list defending Bill Gates as a consumer is
> easy to do.

Well, Lewis, here's a plan:

Buffy, Bonnie, and BIll want to buy an operating system.

Buffy and Bonnie want Internet capability, like most people buying a new
computer today. 

Bill doesn't.

So let's add up the costs to consumers of bundling vs. non-bundling:
bundled     unbundled
Bill           $79              $69
Buffy         $79              $69  + $29 for Internet Plus Pack
Bonnie      $79               $69  + $29 for Internet Plus Pack
                 =====           =====
                 237              265
$79 is what we paid for Windows 98 at Linux Hardware Solutions. I am breaking
the Microsoft OEM licensing agreement by telling you this, but what can they
do, yank LHS's OEM contract? (Linux Hardware Solutions is no longer in business,
so there isn't much Microsoft can do to them!).  $29 is what I paid for the
Internet Plus Pack in 1995. $69 is my estimate of the cost that Windows 98
would be without Internet access bundled, based upon my knowledge of the
software industry and distribution mechanisms (Microsoft probably only saw at
most $10 of that $29 sale price for the Internet Plus Pack, due to middleman,
packaging costs, shelf rental costs, etc.). 

Okay, Bill is paying $10 more for his OS. But: Buffy and Bonnie are paying $20
*LESS* for their desired configuration. And consumers, ON AVERAGE,  are paying
$9.33 *LESS* for their desired configuration, due to the cost savings from
bundling rather than having to buy their desired configuration as separate
components. 

So yes, Bill is harmed. But the average consumer in the above example is
actually HELPED, because they're getting the desired functionality for less
money. So Lewis, you are saying that the majority of consumers should suffer
just because one person did not want browser functionality?

> Clearly I have claimed to represent the consumer. My articles on Bill
> Gates illustrate that.

I suggest checking my web site at http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green . I have
a variety of articles there debunking various defenses of Microsoft's
inexcusable ethical lapses and noting outright lies that Microsoft propogates
about their conduct and products. I, however, am not arrogant enough to presume
to represent "the consumer". 

> So.  I assume that everyone supporting that position is in fact
> "selling".  They may not disclose who they represent but the fact

Ah. Here we go. The product I want to force the sale of is Linux. I am a Linux
enthusiast, and I have "forced" the sale of Linux into every place of
employment I've been at for the past five years, as well as stridently
criticizing Microsoft's loathful ethics (or lack thereof) and shoddy business
practices at every opportunity. I have detailed my credentials elsewhere. 
I am being paid by Enhanced Software Technologies, a founding member of Linux
International, in order to design computer software. I am not being paid by any
other entity.  I do not own stock in any of the following companies: Red Hat
Software, VA Linux Systems, Microsoft, or Intel. I do not serve as a paid or
unpaid spokesperson for any of the above entities, and anything I say here
reflects my own opinions, not those of Enhanced Software Technologies Inc. 

That does not eliminate the fact that most consumers want a browser when they
buy a computer. It also does not eliminate the fact that Microsoft removes the
ability of consumers to have a choice of browsers, by making it impossible for
computer manufacturers to include Netscape Navigator as the browser of choice. 
But that's another issue altogether from the dead horse that you insist upon
beating. 

-- 
Eric Lee Green   e_l_green@hotmail.com
http://members.tripod.com/e_l_green/